Posts Tagged ‘ complementary and alternative medicine ’

Holy Hyperbole Batman!!


Apparently the Armageddon predicted by Harold Camping is not the only one we have to contend with. Watch out, it’s The Next Armageddon!

Did you know that the WHO is not the health promoting organization we think it is but really the most nefarious institution in human history?[1]

According to one conspiracy nut[2] the WHO has put into action a plan to kill over 3 billion[3] people. Huh, WHO’da thunk it?

WHO is really going to take this seriously?[4]

The target of this hysteria is the Codex Alimentarius, a set of regulatory guidelines put out by the WHO to:

“..develop food standards, guidelines and related texts such as codes of practice under the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. The main purposes of this Programme are protecting health of the consumers and ensuring fair trade practices in the food trade, and promoting coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations.”

At least, that’s what “They” want you to think. Mwahahaha!

Russians and Nazis and conspiracies, Oh My!

The first thing you’ll notice about this brightly coloured screed[5] is the complete absence of references. A large number of extremely serious allegations are made and not a single effort has been made to allow you to verify these for yourself.

The first real claim made (apart from the whole killing three billion people thing) is that a Nazi war criminal teamed up with the United Nations to control the population of the world through the food supply. Not a sniff of backing for this is included in the text. Searching on the name of the Nazi[6] and United Nations turns up only other conspiracy sites using virtually identical text. I’m convinced.

This page also taps into the paranoia around water fluoridation by asserting that fluoride is both a poison and has the effect of eliminating aggression and ambition. the proof?

“…. and the fact that it is used in many drugs prescription[sic] shows that it eliminates aggression and ambition in people.”

What more do you need sheeple??? Obviously it must be true, its all in black and white (except the bits in red). Plus, you know, the Russians used it in experiments and got the same results. Uh, where did you get that tidbit? Show me that paper, and the others where it was replicated. Oh, it’s part of the conspiracy you say. How convenient.

Regarding poisons, I’ve said it before: Dose Matters. Things that in high doses would kill us are routinely used in medicine. There is a range where the benefit’s of a substance outweigh the risks. To deny this is to fundamentally misunderstand medicinal and toxicological science.

Of course, this is all the work of evil entities that have been planing population control since the early 1960′s. I have to say that this is some impressively long term planning. I’m surprised there’s no mention of the “Illuminati” if anyone is good at long term, surely it’s them.

Conspiracies, conspiracies everywhere….

“Why Are You Not Aware Of This?

Because the strategy was so thought-out that it’s almost impossible to realise our food is being used against us.  But when you dig deeper you will see that everything is set up to kill us slowly over time… without one factor being the main cause, because there are many. Basically, for those who die… it will be made out as their own fault…”

Yep, almost impossible. Almost. Only those who have the ability to scratch the surface, pull back the curtain and pierce the fog can work it out. Gosh they must have keen insight. Or perhaps they are engaging in overactive pattern recognition and faulty reasoning, not to mention MSU[7] syndrome. It could go either way.

But wait, there’s more. Not only is this guy warning us out of the goodness of his heart, he’s also willing to sell us a book that tells you how not to be killed by the evil powers that be. How nice.

The price of USD$37 is just symbolic, you know nominal, don’t worry about it at all.

My favourite of the benefits touted as to why you should buy the book is:

“The naked truth behind UMAMI (the taste scam behind 90% of the foods today…which is so toxic and makes the foods taste so good and irresistible). What you don’t know is that UMAMI has a terrible effect over your health. Here’s how to avoid it… “

I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and presume that this is an example of poor editing. Umami isn’t a chemical, it’s the subjective experience of taste that we interpret as savoury/meaty taste. Perhaps what is being referred to here is glutamate or MSG, which for a short time was considered to have negative health effects.[8] Subsequent study has failed to bear this out. So even that generous reading of this point is, well, wrong. Sorry.

If it seems like I haven’t really taken any of this seriously, it’s because I don’t. There are some claims where the only reasonable response is ridicule. There are dozens of assertions put forward on the web page in question. Many of which don’t even give enough information to know exactly what is being claimed[9], let alone providing any basis for refutation or confirmation.

Without providing any details the page is “not even wrong” it’s incomprehensible. The only value it has is to whip up unfounded fear and paranoia, all to pave the way towards buying the book that will save you. From another perspective it has one other value, entertainment.

HT to Alison for bringing this to my attention. Thanks for the hilarity.

————————————————————————–

Footnotes:

1. If you’re an anti-vaxxer, don’t answer that. Also, don’t quote-mine me. Satire has it’s weaknesses.

2. He says he’s not but methinks he doth protest too much.

3. For maximum effect try to read this in the tone of Dr. Evil.

4. Last one, honest.

5. Though not nearly as bad as most conspiracy sites, so there’s that.

6. Hermann Schmitz, president of I.G. Farben the major producer of poison gas for the Germans.
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/cntrl10_trials.htm#Farben

7. Making Shit Up.

8. Ooooh, the dreaded Wikipedia. Inside joke, don’t worry about it.

9. “All nutrients (vitamins and minerals) that have any positive health impact on the body are to be considered toxins/poisons and are to be removed from all food because Codex prohibits the use of nutrients to “prevent, treat or cure any condition or disease”. “   -What does that even mean? Are they going to suck all of the beta-carotene out of carrots? How would you even go about implementing such a retarded scheme?

2011
05/25
CATEGORY
Hoaxes
Psychological
Sciblogs
skepticism
Warped Science
TAGS










2 comments

Lemon: The New Miracle Cure!


[EDIT: I'm still getting emails asking how best to consume lemons for their anti-cancer effect here's a disclaimer: Lemons Are NOT A Therapeutic Agent For Cancer Treatment. It Is A Hoax. This Post Is NOT Medical Advice. If you Have Medical Questions Please See A Doctor. Also Please Read the FULL Post Which Continues Past The Green Text]

The surprising benefits of lemon!

Institute of Health Sciences, 819 N. L.L.C. Charles Street Baltimore , MD 1201.
This is the latest in medicine, effective for cancer!

Read carefully & you be the judge.
Lemon(Citrus) is a miraculous product to kill cancer cells. It is 10,000 times stronger than chemotherapy.
Why do we not know about that? Because there are laboratories interested in making a synthetic version that will bring them huge profits. You can now help a friend in need by letting him/her know that lemon juice is beneficial in preventing the disease. Its taste is pleasant and it does not produce the horrific effects of chemotherapy. How many people will die while this closely guarded secret is kept, so as not to jeopardize the beneficial multimillionaires large corporations? As you know, the lemon tree is known for its varieties of lemons and limes. You can eat the fruit in different ways: you can eat the pulp, juice press, prepare drinks, sorbets, pastries, etc… It is credited with many virtues, but the most interesting is the effect it produces on cysts and tumors. This plant is a proven remedy against cancers of all types. Some say it is very useful in all variants of cancer. It is considered also as an anti microbial spectrum against bacterial infections and fungi, effective against internal parasites and worms, it regulates blood pressure which is too high and an antidepressant, combats stress and nervous disorders.
The source of this information is fascinating: it comes from one of the largest drug manufacturers in the world, says that after more than 20 laboratory tests since 1970, the extracts revealed that: It destroys the malignant cells in 12 cancers, including colon, breast, prostate, lung and pancreas … The compounds of this tree showed 10,000 times better than the product Adriamycin, a drug normally used chemotherapeutic in the world, slowing the growth of cancer cells. And what is even more astonishing: this type of therapy with lemon extract only destroys malignant cancer cells and it does not affect healthy cells.
Institute of Health Sciences, 819 N. L.L.C. Cause Street, Baltimore, MD1201
SEND TO EVERYONE … ! ! ! ! !

—————————————————————————————–

No, I haven’t turned to the dark side, yet. The above was sent to me by a workmate and I have reproduced it here, complete with eye catching colours. Searching the intertubes reveals that many people have perfected the art of the uncritical copy and paste[1]. Not everyone has “drunk the kool-aid” though[2].

Lets deconstruct shall we? This is going to be fun.

Initial reading of this “article” throws up numerous red flags that the claim is either wholly made up or exaggerated. First is the allusion to conspiracy, while drug companies can certainly act in nefarious ways[3] this article implies that scientists in general would close ranks and perpetuate the conspiracy. Otherwise why haven’t government funded scientists or otherwise drug company independent scientists picked this up?
Another is the fact that several authoritative sounding statements are made but there is no detail to back them up

1. lemons kill cancer: Well what part of the lemon? where is it most concentrated? what variety is best? how should it be prepared for maximum benefit? what dose?
2. A laboratory has tested it: Well who? Where? what papers were published? what was the experimental set up? was it in vitro or in vivo? what were the results exactly?
3. Lemons are 10,000 times better than chemotherapy. Really? not 8,000 or 12,000 but exactly 10,000? In all situations?

Many fruits and vegetables have potentially therapeutically beneficial compounds, there are promising anticancer compounds in broccoli[4]. But the levels found in the foods are often too low and too variable to be of therapeutic use. But that’s negative thinking, what matters is that the compounds are there and it’s all natural, practicalities are a downer.

This lack of interest in dose response permeates the altmed/pseudoscientific crowd, both in the positive and negative sense. There is no safe dose of toxic compounds[5] and no lower threshold of benefit for “good” compounds[6]. So questions such as “how many lemons would you have to eat to cure your cancer?” become in this context almost nonsensical. While we in the evidence based camp might ask whether it should be 10 or 100 or 1000 lemons, and is that per day? And for how long? Further, how does the concentration of the anticancer component vary with the nutrition of the plant from year to year, or even within a season? How about between plants? Is the component present in the flesh or the skin? Those in the vague, feel good altmed camp are content with the message “Eat Lemons”.

In a laboratory and medical setting active ingredients aren’t extracted from plants and purified or synthesised solely to generate profits for drug companies (though that’s a motivation don’t get me wrong) but to make it easier to work with and quantify the correct therapeutic doses and optimal delivery methods.

Additionally, labs have to get consent for testing drugs on humans so it’s likely that the tests alluded to, if they occurred at all, were on cell cultures. This method can indicate interesting directions for research but does not guarantee that it will turn into a useful therapy. The body is very complex and things that work in a petri dish do not necessarily work in the body. It could break down too fast, or not reach the right tissues effectively, or be modified by metabolic processes or excreted too efficiently or any number of other things. Basic science research is good at generating these sorts of leads but the journey from bench top to consumer is one fraught with pitfalls.  Few drugs that appear promising at the outset make it to market[7].

Another red flag is the number of other conditions it treats. Each of the ailments listed have different causes and treatments, it is highly unlikely that the same thing will combat both high blood pressure and parasites when these have absolutely nothing in common[8].
Also, much of the text is similar to an article about another “miraculous” fruit, Guyabano, fruit of the Graviola tree[9].

Points of similarity:
1. We don’t know about it because the drug companies are trying to make a synthetic version to patent.
2. You can help a friend by telling him to drink the juice, the taste is not bad and has no side effects.
3. A large drug company has conducted 20 tests on it since the 1970s.
3. Kills 12 types of cancer.
4. “The tree compounds proved to be up to 10,000 times stronger in slowing the growth of cancer cells than Adriamycin, a commonly used chemotherapeutic drug!”
5. Only kills cancer cells.

Curiously similar given it is a completely different plant being talked about.

Searching the “Health Sciences Institute” (not the Institute of Health Sciences) I couldn’t find anything about Lemon and cancer but a Graviola and cancer search turned up a similar looking article (requires a subscription[10] to read but I suspect it may well be the source of the information for the one at the address above)

So it looks like this is actually a mash up of at least two different claims. I think we are witnessing the birth of a new altmed mythology, right here.

None of this means that Lemons cannot be used as a basis for anti-cancer drugs, in fact I did actually find that there are at least a couple of citrus derived compounds being investigated for anticancer activity[11&12]. Even so, the likelihood that simply eating lemons will cure you of cancer seems quite low, for all the reasons given above.

Multiple lines of evidence appear to be converging on this being if not a scam then at least a confabulation. Well meaning people will forward items like this to friends and relatives without much thought. I consider this to be irresponsible behaviour. As I have pointed out before in the context of chain emails, if we truly want to help our loved ones it behoves us to investigate these claims before passing them on. Whom do we help by perpetuating falsehoods?

—
Footnotes:

1. Here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here- and about a thousand others. I’m so depressed right now.

2. While searching out instances of this rot I found a breast cancer forum that had posted it, as a joke to be ridiculed. Read it now, it shows how these ridiculous items are actually insulting to those affected by cancer.

3. Like ghost-writing research and review articles in their favour. Yes they are profit driven entities, and yes they can go too far to ensure those profits but they do crucial research and development and we need them.

4. Yanyan Li et al (2010), Sulforaphane, a Dietary Component of Broccoli/Broccoli Sprouts, Inhibits Breast Cancer Stem Cells
Clinical Cancer Research May 1, 2010 16; 2580

http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/16/9/2580.abstract

5. For example in the anti-vax movement.

6. Like homeopathy, even ZERO isn’t a small enough amount for there to be no benefit.

7. Shoot, I’ve been archiving wecite versions of pages I link to to make sure the don’t vanish without a trace but was too late for this one.
http://brneurosci.org/drug-failures.html

8. Not withstanding that everything in the altmed world is linked, it’s all toxins or vibrations or pH or quantum or something.

9.
http://guyabano.com/
   [webcite]  – with another version containing even closer wording here:
http://mybongabon.com/samut-sari/the-sour-sop-miraculous-natural-cancer-cell-killer-by-arlyn-roa/
 [webcite].

10. 1-year risk-free membership, Brand-New Encyclopedia of HSI’s 100 Greatest Cures and FREE bonus reports :No More Sick Days: The Immune Discovery of the Decade” and “How to Survive the FDA’s 10 Deadliest Hush-ups” for just US$67. [webcite]. You can’t get more credible than that. [article webcite]

11. Chidambara Murthy K.N., et al(2011), Citrus Limonin and Its Glucoside Inhibit Colon Adenocarcinoma Cell Proliferation through Apoptosis.
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338095

12. Cazal, C.M., et al(2010), Evaluation of effect of triterpenes and limonoids on cell growth, cell cycle and apoptosis in human tumor cell line.
Anti-Cancer Agents in Medicinal Chemistry, 10(10):769-76.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21269253

Enhanced by Zemanta
2011
03/07
CATEGORY
Alternative medicine
Medicine
Sciblogs
Science
skepticism
TAGS














34 comments

Amber Teething Beads: A Few Points to Consider


Being a new parent and a sceptic I have been on guard regarding dubious advice and practices. Parents, especially new parents like myself, are a vulnerable group. We tend to be full of anxiety that we are doing the “right thing” by our children. Where-ever you find a vulnerable group like this you also tend to find those who prey on such fears. I have actually been pleasantly surprised, despite my vigilance I have not yet been subjected to any dubious advice (that I’ve noticed). But early last week I was confronted by a practice from a fellow new parent that I found a little disturbing. I’m taking about using necklaces of amber beads to reduce the pain of teething for babies.

Teething can be an especially stressful time for parents and children, the child may be experiencing pain as the new teeth break through the gums. This means an irritable child and frazzled parents. Anything that promises to relieve or prevent this harrowing time is gratefully embraced.

On to the amber beads. This practice disturbs me for several reasons. First is safety, the necklace if left on the baby for long periods may pose a strangling hazard of it becomes caught on something. Most advertise that they are made to break easily to prevent this and that the beads are individually knotted onto the necklace to prevent scattering on breakage. However this still seems to leave a broken string of beads in reach of a baby, as as most people know – anything a baby can get it’s hands on goes straight into the mouth. So choking is also a concern[1&17].

Now, I’m not one to be a worry wart over every little potential hazard, used correctly under parental supervision I suspect that the likelihood of a tragedy of this kind is low. But not zero[15&16]. This coupled with the low possibility that the necklace actually does anything is what worries me. The second disturbing thing is that parents are accepting this via word of mouth and apparently not consulting their doctors before subjecting their child to an intervention of unknown safety and efficacy.

I have three main points I want to cover with regard to these amber beads that parents should consider before trying these beads (in addition to the physical safety above). The first relates to basic plausibility.

Before we get to that though it depends on which mechanism of action for the beads you subscribe to. There are several explanations regarding how the beads are supposed to work floating around the intertubes, many are of the tinfoil hat brigade variety, these will be ignored (but look here and here for a bit of a chuckle). Only one explanation I have found makes biological sense so that’s the one I’ll be focusing on.

That explanation is Succinic acid, baltic amber is known to contain between 3-8% succinic acid. According to proponents this is released from the beads and into your baby. The succinic acid then allegedly has an analgesic effect and so reduces the pain of teething. Here is where my first point regarding plausibility comes in:

Amber is tough, really tough. This is a material that has persisted for thousands and in some cases millions of years unchanged. Suffering through heating and cooling of innumerable climatic changes through the years. Yet this same tough unchanging material with happily give up it’s chemical components upon the gentle heating it receives on being placed next to your baby’s skin? Colour me unconvinced[1&2]. Related to this point amber has a hardness on the Mohs scale of between 1 and 3 [3], baltic amber which is usually touted as the therapeutic variety (because of the high succinic acid content) is at the high end of this scale 2 – 2.5. To put this in perspective, Tin has a hardness of about 1.5 and Gold is 2.5-3 [4]. But forget about this point, I don’t need it. Lets say for argument sake that clinically relevant amounts of succinic acid are released by the amber and absorbed by your baby’s skin.

My second point then, relates directly to the claims made for succinic acid. Succinic acid is made in the body (and in plants) as part of the citric acid cycle (aka krebs cylce)[5]. It is also use in the food and beverage industry as a food acid (additive #363 to be precise)[6]. Interestingly in this capacity there are recommendations from some quarters to avoid the substance[7]. Even so, apart from it’s early use as a topical treatment for rheumatic pain[8] there is no evidence that I could find (searching Pubmed at least, where I would expect a decent study to be referenced) that it is effective as either an anti-inflammatory or general analgesic. Let me be clear on that, I don’t mean low quality evidence, I don’t mean small poorly designed trials with equivocal effects, I mean nothing. Zip. Nada. In fact if anyone knows of any let me know because I find this complete lack quite surprising, I’m open to the idea that I was looking in the wrong place or was using incorrect search terms. So, unless there is late breaking news, it fails on that count as well. Meh, what do we care about evidence of efficacy anyway? Throw this point out too. Lets move on to my final argument, uh, I mean point to consider.

Lets say that a. the beads do indeed release succinic acid into your baby and b. this succinic acid has an analgesic effect once it enters your baby’s body. Doesn’t the very fact that an unknown amount of a drug[9] is being put into your baby’s body bother you? What is that I hear? It’s natural? Oh, well, that’s ok then. No wait, no it’s not. I don’t care what the origin of a compound is, the question is what are it’s effects on the body and do the benefits out weigh the risks. Ok, lets replace succinic acid with some other naturally occurring substance, salicylic acid. This is a compound with known anti-inflammatory properties[10]. Would you be happy with a product that introduced unknown levels of this compound into your baby? What if I said that overdoses with this compound could lead to a 1% chance of death?[11] It’s natural, it’s also the precursor to acetylsalicylic acid, otherwise known as Aspirin[12].

Now, lest I be accused of unnecessary fear mongering and drawing false comparisons I would like to admit that at present there is no evidence to suggest that succinic acid is hazardous, nor even that it is potentially hazardous[5]. This does not detract from my main point however, the point isn’t whether this particular compound is safe or not but that the reasoning[13] around it’s use is faulty and cannot be used as a substitute for evidence.

Based on the complete lack of plausibility on any level of efficacy any potential for harm, however small, must tip the balance of this equation away from the use of this product. Don’t trust me though, talk to your doctor, I suspect though that given the complete lack of reliable information on this topic they will be left to rely on their own philosophy of harm vs benefit. In the final analysis, there are not always clear answers[14], but developing good critical thinking skills will at least provide you with a small light in the darkness.

[Edit - I recently posted a follow-up article to this addressing some of the points raised in the comments below. It may be found Here]

[Update 20/07/12:  Commenter Heidi Pogner-Schultz has provided a thoughtful and researched perspective in support of amber beads (here), I disagree for reasons outlined in my reply to her (here). But this is exactly the type of reasoned evidence I was looking for so I thank her for the contribution.]

[Update 29/4/13: Apparently there is a chain email circulating blaming amber beads for a case of SIDS, a visitor mentioned this in the polling comments. This seemed implausible to me and a very brief check seems to back up my gut feeling. There is no reason to think that amber beads contribute to SIDS at all. For a more thorough break-down go here:
http://www.hoax-slayer.com/amber-teething-necklace-sids.shtml
 . I am not one who feels we need to latch onto any reason to vilify our intellectual opponents and spreading misinformation (especially easily debunked misinformation) is a big no-no in my book.]

Informal Poll:

After reading the preceding post I wonder if you’d like to help me measure what sort of effect this research is having. Please indicate on the poll below your attitude to using Amber beads -

[Edit: Preliminary results from the poll - most consider their opinion unchanged, what a shock. Also the "Other" section is not for insults, if you wish to call me an idiot please do so in the comments of the post where you may be held up for ridicule.]

Footnotes:

1.
http://www.3news.co.nz/Teething-necklaces-dangerous—sceptics/tabid/423/articleID/160820/Default.aspx

2. I found this paper that analysed the volatile out gassing of amber, succinic acid was not mentioned as an identified component.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/865ku15055np3x78/

3.
http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/amber/physic.htm

4.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohs_scale_of_mineral_hardness

5.
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fcn/fcnDetailNavigation.cfm?rpt=scogsListing&id=339

6.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_food_additives,_Codex_Alimentarius

7.
http://www.foodreactions.org/allergy/additives/300.html

8.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succinic_acid#History

9. If it has biologic activity that can be used in a therapeutic fashion, it’s a drug, no quibbling on that point please.

10.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salicylic_acid#Medicinal_and_cosmetic_uses

11.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salicylic_acid#Safety

12.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirin

13. ie “It’s got to be good, it’s natural.”. Don’t make me barf.

14. Who am I kidding, there are almost never clear answers. Who wants certainty anyway?

15.
http://safekidspiercecounty.health.officelive.com/Documents/Choking%20and%20Suffocation%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf
 This is an american document but I don’t think necklaces become safer just because we’re in NZ.

16.
http://www.nzchildren.co.nz/infant_mortality.php
 NZ infant mortality statistics.

17.
http://www.bpac.org.nz/magazine/2010/april/docs/bpj_27_oral_pages_30-41.pdf
 See page 33.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
2011
02/21
CATEGORY
Alternative medicine
Medicine
Questionable Techniques
Sciblogs
Science
skepticism
TAGS

















263 comments

Is Acupuncture Worth a Punctured Lung? or Does the Risk Out Weigh the Benefit?


Friday’s issue of The New Zealand Medical Journal includes a case report of pneumothrorax in a recipient of acupuncture. For the interested layperson out there a pneumothorax in the collection of air in the space between the lung and chest wall leading in extreme cases to cardiac arrest. Acupuncture can result in pneumothorax when the needle is inserted into the lung tissue while the patient is breathing leading to the laceration of the lung and air being forced out of the lung and into the pleural cavity1. Mmm-mmm, gimmie some of that lung collapsing goodness.

Now lest I give the impression that complications from acupuncture use are common I will hasten to add that they are not. One paper estimates the rate of serious adverse events at approximately 1 per 20,ooo patients2. Though if we look at the rates of acupuncture use in the United States as an example, as of about 2007 approximately 1% of the population reported using acupuncture in the previous 12 months3. This translates to about 155 serious adverse effects per year. Another study found over 2% of patients reported adverse reactions that required treatment4, commonly for bleeding or pain. Multiply these figures by the likely worldwide numbers of people receiving acupuncture.

Lets compare this with the conventional medical field, the drug Terfenadine marketed under the trade name Seldane (Teldane here in NZ) was removed from the market in the US due to increased risk of cardiac arrhythmia when used in conjunction with certain other drugs. This expressed itself as a risk of 0.04 – 0.08 per million “defined daily doses”5. Once a replacement drug came on the market Terfenadine was taken off.

Pneumothorax as a complication from acupuncture is  rare even in this subgroup. More common is infection. As I’ve noted before6, the underlying theory of acupuncture is the manipulation of life energies (Qi or Chi), blockages or imbalances in which are the cause of disease. If such is the case then why should the treating physician7 bother with proper antiseptic technique? I suspect that most modern practitioners are however not so far down the rabbit-hole that they have thrown away germ theory completely, at least the outward practical side involved in cleaning and sterilising implements. Which is why even infections are still relatively infrequent.

I would like to point out however that given the implausibility of the treatment basis, coupled with the fact that most large well designed studies find no benefit beyond placebo does make the existence of any complications ethically troubling. If your treament is no more than an elaborate placebo, are you willing to suffer adverse effects because of it? As reported by Dr Novella of Science Based Medicine8, a recent review of acupuncture admitted that sham (placebo) acupuncture was as good a “real” acupuncture.

Lets delve into the definition of “sham” acupuncture a little more to give the proper context to this revelation. Whereas “real” acupuncture depends on the proper insertion of the needles in specific meridian points on the body sham acupuncture can be considered to be either the placement of needles into non-meridian points, or the use of implements that feel like needles to the patients but do not pierce the skin like toothpicks9. This indicates that it doesn’t matter where you stick the needles and it doesn’t even matter if you stick the needles. How then can we conclude that acupuncture works if you don’t need to perform the two defining characteristics of acupuncture?

Given this background I find it difficult to imagine why acupuncture continues to be recommended despite convincing evidence of efficacy and indisputable evidence of harm. All medical interventions carry some element of risk, this is then weighed against the potential for benefit. However when there is no benefit any amount of risk must make that equation lopsided with regard to harm. With that in mind, if you are attracted to acupuncture as a therapy let me recommend sham acupuncture as the way to go. All the placebo-y goodness of real acupuncture without the potential for the nasty drawbacks of infection, bleeding, pain or even pneumothorax.

Further reading:

Type “Acupuncture” and “Infection” or “Pneumothorax” into Pubmed as key words and you will find a variety of papers, a selection of which are below:

Acupuncture induced pneumothorax:a case report (not the report mentioned in the post)

Editorial:Acupuncture transmitted infections

Cutaneous Mycobacterium haemophilum infection in a kidney transplant recipient after acupuncture treatment.

Acupuncture needle-associated prosthetic knee infection after total knee arthroplasty

Footnotes:

1. Clinical analysis on 38 cases of pneumothorax induced by acupuncture or acupoint injection

2. A cumulative review of the range and incidence of significant adverse events associated with acupuncture

3.
http://nccam.nih.gov/health/acupuncture/introduction.htm

4. Safety of acupuncture: results of a prospective observational study with 229,230 patients and introduction of a medical information and consent form.

5. Detection and reporting of drug-induced proarrhythmias: room for improvement

6. Scepticon: Acupuncture

7. And here I use the term loosely.

8.Acupuncture Pseudoscience in the New England Journal of Medicine

9. I kid you not, here are a couple of the studies:
Description and Validation of a Noninvasive Placebo Acupuncture Procedure
A randomized trial comparing acupuncture, simulated acupuncture, and usual care for chronic low back pain

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta
2010
08/16
CATEGORY
Alternative medicine
Medicine
Questionable Techniques
Sciblogs
skepticism
TAGS












14 comments

Lemon Detox


If you have been listening to the radio over the last few weeks you’ve probably heard about the amazing Lemon Detox Diet. “Detox” is one of the current buzz words in the alternative health sphere, it’s perfect because it’s not well defined but it carries a vague sense of helping your body to be healthy. If in doubt slap “Detox” in the name of your product and it’ll sell like hotcakes. I’ve written more generally about the Detox fad but I want to focus on this particular diet as it is currently very popular and so seems particularly harmful. The diet itself consists of Palm and Maple syrup, Lemon juice Cayenne  pepper and water, sounds nutritious. The regimen requires downing 2 litres of the diluted syrup a day for 10-14 days.

Read more

2009
03/22
CATEGORY
Alternative medicine
Medicine
Psychological
skepticism
TAGS








4 comments

Are People Affected by Non-Ionising Radiation?


Modern living can have it’s drawbacks as well as it’s advantages, nobody died in plane crashes 500 years ago. Some of the disadvantages come as a direct result of our increase in scientific and technological knowledge, there would be no antibiotic resistant bacteria without antibiotics. Some people worry about ever more subtle forms of danger in the modern world, there are those who classify themselves as “Electrosensitive”. Electrosensitives consider the electromagnetic fields produced by electronic products such as computers, cell phones, T.V.s, well almost everything these days, to be harmful in general and to affect them in particular in a variety of ways. Symptoms may include but not be limited to: headache, fatigue, tinnitus, dizziness, memory deficits and irregular heart beat, in fact there are lists including over thirty symptoms ranging from asthma to epilepsy and Alzheimer’s.

Earlier this year researchers at the University of Regensburg conducted a study of self identified electrosensitive sufferers comparing their reactions to non-sufferers when exposed to a heat-emitting thermode and a cell phone. The sufferers experienced discomfort from both stimuli where as non-sufferers only experienced discomfort from the thermode. This was backed up by brain scans of the subjects which indicated that the pain experienced was real. Unfortunately the phone used in the experiment was fake, there were no electromagnetic fields being produced. The sufferers were not making up the pain they felt, it was real to them, but in the same way that a placebo treatment can (allegedly*) make people feel better it appears that the anticipation of pain by the sufferers lead them to feel it, in a sort of nocebo response to the sham phone.

It seems that while these electrosensitive people are not merely attention seeking, as the discomfort they feel is undoubtedly real, neither are they suffering from a disability brought on by exposure to fields that are generally considered harmless. What’s going on here? I have no idea but I’ll be interested to see how further research sheds light on this.

Resources


http://www.sciam.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=cell-phones-sometimes-cause-real-pa-08-10-13


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WNP-4SB7TW1-4&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=993618adacb00f6dc3c58a70d580feb2


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_sensitivity


http://www.electrosensitivity.org/

* It’s complicated, it could be that what we refer to as a placebo response doesn’t actually exist and is really a mislabelling of other factors that have nothing to do with response to treatment. Who knows.

add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank

2008
11/21
CATEGORY
Psychological
Science
skepticism
TAGS











3 comments

Frequency Specific Microcurrent Revisited


About two months ago I wrote a piece describing the practice of Frequency Specific Microcurrent therapy (FSM) and attempted to show why I thought the practice was at best the premature use of an unproven modality and at worst a new way of parting the afflicted from their cash. This post recently attracted a comment from a Chiropractor named Pamela Hall who wished to defend the technique. As the comment was lengthy and covered a number of interesting points I thought I would post my reply as a blog entry. First I would like to thank Pamela Hall, DC, for her comment and I hope that I can reply to her in as thoughtful and considerate a way as she has conducted herself. Her comment starts:

Research that meets the gold standard of large patient numbers, with controls costs millions of dollars. There is very little money available for treatment that won’t make the drug companies or some other big players in the medical-industrial complex a lot of money. This is why the research doesn’t get done on this scale. In fact in the 1930′s all electrical therapies, herbs, and homeopathy were banned. They were a threat to the profit of drug companies and the AMA.

Firstly there have been well designed studies on other modalities that “won’t make the drug companies … a lot of money” such as acupuncture, I don’t see why this one should be any different. Also you have presented a false dichotomy here, the choice is not between large definitive clinical trials and nothing at all, smaller pilot studies published in reputable journals will do. If you can provide that I will be greatly appreciative, the best I could find was a case study which vaguely mentioned “microcurrent” along with several other treatment options. Given the amount of time the treatment has been in use I don’t think this is unreasonable.

Those who are prejudiced against so called “alternative healing” fail to acknowledge that western medicine has used aspirin simply because it worked without knowing the reason why until rather recently. The common treatment for angina is nitroglycerin put under the tongue, and this treatment was taken from the realm of homeopathy.

I will gladly acknowledge that much of conventional medicine has come from herbal preparations, folk remedies and the like and that medicines may be used without knowledge of the method of action. However, that the active constituent of Willow bark, salicylic acid (the precursor to acetylsalicylic acid or Aspirin) was extracted and purified which enabled the creation of medicines of consistent dose and quality, is all because of science. Just because a treatment can be obtained from a particular tradition or practice (such as homeopathy) does not lend credence to any of the other methods common to that source, they all must be evaluated separately on their merits, or lack thereof as the case may be. Also, especially in the case of Aspirin, there is a plausible mechanism of action, where a metabolically active substance is introduced into the body and produces a biological effect.

You failed to mention the research done with the frequency for inflammation, using the same animal model as used to test most all of the anti-inflammatory drugs. FSM reduced inflammation by 64% in four minutes, and they never found a drug that reduced it more that 45%. Further more, all anti-inflammatory drugs have undesirable side effects some of which can be life threatening.

This is a fair point and I will accept it. I presume you are referring to this study, the reason I did not discuss it was essentially practical in nature, I could only find this one page abstract which was thin on details. There was nothing there I could dissect. Even If I could have found the full paper it is likely I would not have gone over it as I would have felt even less capable of interpreting it than the study I did present. You bring up another point though that I agree with, drugs do have side effects, as do almost all other types of treatments. As I pointed out in my original post the very fact that treatments have an effect on the body opens the possibility that that can have negative as well as positive effects. As far as I can determine the claim that FSM has no negative side effects can neither be proved or disproved, as you seem to confirm the data is simply not there.

You stated two frequencies are employed by Dr. McMakin, however, hundreds of frequencies are employed. There are always at least two frequencies applied at a time, one resonating with a specific tissue and one resonating with a specific condition.

This I think is simply a misunderstanding, I am aware that there are more than two frequencies that can be used, and I do allude to this fact in several places. My apologies for not being clear.

Microcurrent increases cellular energy by 500% and also increases protein synthesis. This is not what I would call a modest claim.

This may be true, here is the study (performed in 1982 and used as a reference for FSM everywhere), this study was on rat skin tissue in vitro and as such can not necessarily be extrapolated to treating the whole body or even significant parts of it for specific diseases. In addition I do not know how these increases affect other biological functioning or whether or not they are significant even in the context given. Indeed though there does seem to be a biological effect produced by the microcurrent and I refer you to my point above regarding potential harm. However my main point of disagreement with the treatment is the “Frequency Specific” part, in other words the claim that each disease has it’s own unique vibration that can be used to treat it, that is the real claim being made and that is the part that I find least convincing.

You state that Dr. Abrams was dismissed as a fraud in the 1920′s. You fail to mention that Dr. Abrams was investigated by Upton Sinclair, who according to Wikipedia, “was a Pulitzer Prize-winning prolific American author who wrote over 90 books in many genres and was widely considered to be one of the best investigators advocating socialist views. He achieved considerable popularity in the first half of the 20th century. He gained particular fame for his 1906 muckraking novel The Jungle, which dealt with conditions in the U.S. meat packing industry and caused a public uproar that partly contributed to the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act in 1906.”

Mr. Sinclair reported that “Albert Abrams was one of the most eminent practitioners in San Francisco, the head physician of large hospitals, recognized as the author of important discoveries.” Like many scientists who make major breakthroughs his ideas which involved a new paradigm in healing were met with disbelief and derision of his peers. Upton Sinclair was very skeptical when he first visited Abrams, and expected to be done in a couple of days. Instead he stayed and observed him for a couple of weeks, “and it might have been months or even years, if urgent duties had not called me home.” Sinclair considered Dr. Abrams to be a great scientist who had much to offer humankind.

No I did not, and would not have even had I been aware of his involvement. The opinions of a single author, even a “Pulitzer Prize-winning” one such as Mr. Sinclair would amount to anecdote. I read the biography of Mr. Sinclair and failed to note any mention of scientific training or any indication that he had any other expertise that might have been relevant, fame and popularity do not a reliable source make. Even if this had not been the case this point would have carried little weight as it is simply an appeal to authority and as such does not trump the decades of knowledge gained since his time. It is the consensus of scientific opinion that should be the more trust worthy authority here, the views of a single person, even a distinguished scientist (or author), are simply too prone to error and bias.

FSM is based on a new paradigm in healing. Dr. McMakin explains it well in simplified terms on a video clip now on her website: www.frequencyspecific.com. If you wish to have a better understanding of the scientific underpinnings of Frequency Specific Microcurrent, I suggest you read Energy Medicine: The Scientific Basis by James Oschman, Ph.D.

The trouble with new paradigms is that they must first prove themselves in the full sphere of scientific knowledge before they can be accepted. This means that they must either fit with the already established principles we have discovered in the realms of physics, chemistry and biology or provide a new underpinning that incorporates the known facts but explains them in a more complete and satisfying way that can be confirmed or falsified by experiment. When “Einsteinian” physics was discovered it did not overturn Newton, it added a new layer of complexity and richness to our understanding of the Universe.

Once again I would like to thank Pamela for her interest and for taking the time to comment without resorting to simple attacks. None of my points have been made in malice and if and offense is given it is with regret.

add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank

2008
10/22
CATEGORY
Alternative medicine
Medicine
Questionable Techniques
Science
skepticism
Warped Science
TAGS




11 comments

Frequency Specific Microcurrent


This week in my local community paper I had cause to once again raise my brow in surprise at the low bar for inclusion in this publication. I refer to a story written by a journalism student promoting a therapy known as FSM or Frequency Specific Microcurrent (not Flying Spaghetti Monster). I say promoting rather than reporting on as it seemed that the student merely parroted what she had been told of the treatment with nary a skeptical thought. I was unsure when I read this article whether I was looking at a news report or an advertisement for yet another brand of alternative health device. Though I should temper this by pointing out that it seems to be becoming endemic to the field of journalism as a whole rather than be unique to this student of it.

As I could find little in the way of information about this therapy at my usual sources on these sorts of claims (Quackwatch and Skepdic, both excellent resources) I thought I would do some investigation of my own and share the results here. A brief search of PubMed found a decided lack of peer review studies either published by the technology’s alleged inventor Carolyn McMakin, nor on the effectiveness of the therapy itself. So I decided to start with the website of the inventor herself.

The “therapy” consists of applying microamp current to selected areas of the patient’s body, the current is tuned to two different frequencies that historically were supposed to correspond to the resonant frequency of the disease and the tissue of interest. It is unclear whether the current version makes this claim but two frequencies are still employed, apparently providing a unique synergy that is useful for treating only specific ailments. Practically the current is produced by a battery operated device that allows the practitioner to set both the frequency and the current on two independent channels. This current is then transferred to the patient via conductive graphite gloves worn by the practitioner as they lay hands on the patient. The claims for the device itself are modest apparently due to FDA restrictions that apply to the classification of devices it falls under. This classification is that of TENS devices which stands for Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation, this class of machine can provide relief from certain types of pain simply by virtue of electrical stimulation, no frequencies are explicitly invoked.

However, the frequencies used have much wider claims associated with them, one I found amusing was “There is one frequency combination that so far is 100% effective in a small number of cases to take away kidney stone pain.”, I perhaps naively think that a treatment is either 100% effective or is useful in a small number of cases, combining these two seems to be trying to get the best of both worlds. To clarify I don’t think there are necessarily treatments that are always 100% effective but I do have the opinion that a more useful statement would have been how effective the treatment is for the majority of patients. Other claims include the ability to treat asthma, liver dysfunction and irritable bowel syndrome as well as scar removal.

On the website’s FAQ a simplistic history of the use electromagnetic therapy devices from the early 20th century is given and spoken of in glowing terms stating that “There were thousands of physicians using this technology at this time. They had journals and associations and were treating patients and doing research and sharing the effects of frequencies in articles and books.” This may or may not be true but has no relevance as to the effectiveness of the treatment, I have no doubt there are thousands of practitioners prescribing Homeopathic preparations right now. Dr. Albert Abrams is also referenced as a pioneer of these techniques despite his unusual practices having been exposed as fraud in the 1920s. In 1994 Dr. McMakin started using these frequencies on her chiropractic patients and reports that they “appeared to do exactly what they were alleged to do”.

In 1995 Dr. McMakin developed the therapy using a device and a list of reputedly medically useful frequencies that she apparently inherited from a Canadian osteopath. Two years later Dr. McMakin began teaching FSM according to her website “to see if the effects of FSM were reproducible.” (curious, I thought that’s what studies and controlled trials were for). Despite the order in which the story is related this appears to be before papers were presented to either the American Back Society or Topics in Clinical Chiropractic, both chiropractic based. The teaching of the technique consists of a three day course in “the use of frequency protocols, the differential diagnosis of pain generators and neurologic conditions.”. Were this technique developed by the medical mainstream I hope it would have undergone slightly more rigorous investigation before being tested on patients or taught to other practitioners.

Moving on, there are several papers listed on the website in support of this therapy of mixed quality. The most convincing papers deal with the use of the therapy for Fibromyalgia, in particular this study on “Cytokine changes with microcurrent treatment of fibromyalgia associated with cervical spine trauma“. Now I am not medically trained and readily admit that I am not qualified to accurately interpret the results of this study, however there are several points that I as a layman found concerning. First was the inclusion of only a single control subject who also received treatment. Second there seemed to have been quite a high drop-out rate for the trial (approximately 30%) leaving only 32 subjects to acquire meaningful data from. Thirdly, the use of specific frequencies in the treatment is probably the most controversial part and yet those that were chosen for the study are simply asserted to be the most effective with no reference to how this was done or what data lead to this conclusion. Fourthly, and this is less a criticism of the study itself, is the topic under study. I am given to understand that Fibromyalgia is characterised by periods of flares and remission which may complicate the data. I realise however that this trial may be considered a pilot study and so can not be held to the same standards as a large rigorous placebo/non-treated group controlled trial.

In addition the almost ubiquitous claim in pseudo-scientific medicine and quackery is made that there are no dangers or side effects from the treatment itself. As has been pointed out in other places a modality that affects biological systems is unlikely to be all benefit. If there is an effect then it is almost guaranteed there is a side-effect. The consideration undertaken in the use of valid medical interventions is whether the benefits are worth the accompanying risks.

Due to the nature of the therapy it is unclear exactly what is being tested/providing relief, a shaky theory of dubious plausibility based on the unscientific premise that tissues and diseases have “Frequencies” that if applied externally can enhance or inhibit functioning and so cure medical conditions or transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation that at least one doctor considers to be an uncontroversial treatment for pain. What does seem to be clear is that there seems to be more emphasis on promotion of this therapy than on testing it’s efficacy and introducing to the wider medical community a truly useful technique.

Finally, it seems to me that the evidence is not convincing that there is an effect here that can only be explained by appeals to the recovery of lost knowledge from a golden age of medical treatments that was squashed by a jealous Medical Establishment.

Resources


http://www.frequencyspecific.com


http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/News/rife.html


http://www.americanartifacts.com/smma/abrams/abrams.htm


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibromyalgia


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcutaneous_Electrical_Nerve_Stimulator

add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank

2008
08/11
CATEGORY
Alternative medicine
Hoaxes
Medicine
Psychological
Questionable Techniques
skepticism
Warped Science
TAGS






49 comments

What’s the Harm?


As I have pointed out countless times (ok, 4), we are a story telling species, one good anecdote is worth more to most people than a mountain of rigorous evidence and for good evolutionary reasons. This is just a fact of our psychology, it is not just difficult for us to weigh things rationally it is actually going against our basic nature. In recognition of this fact a website has been created to collect stories from around the world that show the real life harm that pseudo-science and other irrational claims can have on individuals. This website is the answer to the oft posed  rhetorical question “What’s the harm?”.

One of the more extreme cases on the site details the story of Sandra Nette, a Canadian woman whose regular visits to a chiropractor resulted in her becoming permanently paralysed. Sandra had been visiting her chiropractor for years to get “maintenance” adjustments that were to keep her healthy, after one such adjustment she began to feel dizzy and unwell. The Chiropractor suggested massage therapy offered at his office and allowed her to leave, she didn’t make it home. After pulling her car over and calling her husband she was taken to the hospital where it was determined that she had tears in both vertebral arteries in her neck which caused a stroke. One of the tears was 3 inches long. According to Sandra’s husband the first words out of the attending physician after reviewing the test results were “chiropractor, right?”.

Now this story in isolation proves nothing about the efficacy or lack thereof of chiropractic, nor does it prove relative safety or harmfulness. However, this is not the point. The point is that other venues have provided evidence of the implausibility and ineffectiveness of this practice and this story is meant to provide a human face to the issue and help people understand, in a way that is real to them and not abstract like a medical study, the possible harm that can be caused. When there is no benefit to a procedure any risk is too much.

Resources


http://WhatstheHarm.net


http://whatstheharm.net/chiropractic.html


http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=152

add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank

2008
08/08
CATEGORY
Alternative medicine
Medicine
Psychological
Questionable Techniques
skepticism
TAGS







1 comment
Sciblogs.co.nz
Atmospheric CO2 data

Rhyming Prose

Vital impulse synaptically flow through neurons, til they go. Lost without a trace not to some other place. The end may be final but our legacy is ample to ensure our continued existence though our life's a single instance.
twitter / Scepticon

Subscribe to email alerts!

Want an Email when new articles are posted? Click Here: Subscribe to Scepticon by Email
View Darcy Cowan's profile on LinkedIn
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 New Zealand License.
The Out Campaign: Scarlet Letter of Atheism
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 58 other followers